Intel's next generation "Ivy Bridge" Core processors slated for 2012 will mark the beginning of Intel's transition to the brand new 22 nanometer fab process. It looks like Ivy Bridge will significantly benefit from this transition, since Intel will raise the bar in terms of energy-efficiency. Even the fastest P1 (performance 1) tier quad-core chips will have TDP rated as low as 77W, down from the 95W Core i7 2600K, for example, has.

The punters at Intel marketing have sliced the market down to finer segments, to better address it. The market is sliced in terms of price-segments (vertical), and in terms of target users (horizontal). The two markers are independent of each other, yet they complement each other in pin-pointing areas of the market Intel can address. Ivy Bridge LGA1155 is restricted to P1 (performance tier 1) segment on the top, with higher tiers, along with HEDT (high-end desktop) being reserved for Sandy Bridge-E LGA2011, and future "Ivy Bridge-E". Horizontally, Intel will have "K" quad-core parts for Enthusiast, standard (locked) quad-core vPro for the Standard, "T" quad-core for Performance-optimized lifestyle, and "S" for Power-optimized lifestyle. Chaotic as it looks, the table below lays out the lineup perfectly.

The P1 segment parts will fall within the Core i7-3700 series, these chips will have the full 8 MB L3 cache present on the Ivy Bridge silicon, and 4 cores with 8 threads (HyperThreading enabled). Just below P1 segment are the MS2 and MS1 segments, the MS2 segment will include quad-core parts with 6 MB L3 cache, and no HyperThreading. The top-most MS2 part will have an unlocked multiplier, much like today's Core i5-2500K. MS2 and MS1 segment parts will take up Core i5-3500 series, Core i5-3400 series, and Core i5-3300 series. There will be just one class of dual-core parts, in the power-optimized MS1 segment. These segments will get have an updated feature-set over the present generation, that includes AES-NI acceleration, PP-DRNG.

Dual-core parts will span across key low-end and value segments. The 55W dual-core silicon will form the bed for SKUs in all four horizontal segments, in T2, T1, and L3 vertical segments. T2 and T1 segment parts will carry the Core i3-3100 series SKUs. These chips will have HyperThreading technology enabled, along with AVX, and updated GPU feature-set. The L3 segment will house the cheapest Ivy Bridge processor, in the Pentium Dual-Core G2000 family. This chip will now support dual-channel DDR3-1600 MHz.

They use the following chipsets: Z68, P67, H67, or H61 (Q67 and Q65 are not supported);

The motherboards feature ME8L UEFI update. For this:

o Your motherboard should currently feature a UEFI firmware
o It should support ME8L update process at the physical level, where the EEPROM is sufficiently large

In due course of time, we will learn more about the ME8L EFI firmware update.

Last but not the least, Intel Smart Response technology (SRT) will be updated to be more functional, and perform even better than it does. Intel will seggregate SRT support among both processors and chipsets. So to be able to use SRT, besides having a compatible chipset, you'll also need a compatible processor. Future Q77, Z77, and H77 chipsets will support SRT, on Core i3, Core i5, and Core i7 processors.

btarunr said:Anyone who bought Gigabyte G1.Sniper2 must be feeling terrible. Sure, that board gives you the perception of Ivy Bridge-readiness with its PCIe Gen 3.0 slots; but then the board uses ye olde AwardBIOS. No UEFI = no scope for firmware update to support Ivy Bridge.

I personally avoided Gigabyte this time when picking out the stuff for my SB build that I just ordered today. They seem to be the only one clinging on to legacy BIOS, and I don't want some crappy BIOS with tons of hacks just to make it comparable to UEFI when I could buy a $99 ASRock board with real UEFI. My AMD E-350 board is stuck with BIOS and has the dumb 3TB hack you mentioned.

Gigabyte has lost my trust with their inability to embrace UEFI, dying $150 Z68 boards and tricky marketing (which they always get busted for something concerning PCIe lane counts or Gen3 compatibility). I think my GA-E350N-USB3 is the last board I will use from them.

These lower TDP will sell very well. Many companies now have Environmental Policies, incl. ISO 14001 http://www.quality.co.uk/iso14000.htm and carbon offset payments, and emissions targets. TDP really is becoming a "decision factor" in corporate and enterprise spend whereas with s775 this wasnt even on the radar yet.

Even though companies will have quite adequate existing PCs, their environmental policies will get them to invest in 22nm CPUs. Intel needs to match equally sparsam chipsets and not do "An Atom" on their chipset.

I think in the next 18 months we will see hybrid mobile/desktop systems. Basically a corpoate desktop running on a mobile ULV platform

Static~Charge said:Why, is that a 17" TouchPad I see sticking out of your pocket? :roll:

ARM processors still have a long way to go before they can compete with the likes of even a low-end Sandy Bridge processor.

You did not read my post.

of course its going to be a 3.5inch screen.

Its called inter-connectivity to other devices such as LCD's and panels(17-30" lcd/ledhdtv ect..) in the future and its very possible, huge market is available if its utilized.

Nice try though :)

**EDIT**As in, PSP size and portability on the go.
When @ home or work you dock it, connect it, sync it to a large monitor. ARM processors are progressing at great speed. The reason being, is that every single company that is in the market using ARM processor's are STRIVING to beat the competition in all ways, especially with smart phone's, tablets, and PDA's.
EXAMPLE:
Samsung with there NEXUS phones.
Apple with there Iphone's. There already dual core, and perform a lot of task reasonably well.

Add in the rest of the market and its a competition fiesta !!

Its like having 4-6 different Intel's and AMD's striving to beat one another in speed, usability, and diversity when it comes to hardware. Where there's competition there is ALWAYS improvement.

Jegergrim said:How do we know if our motherboards support
" The motherboards feature ME8L UEFI update. For this:
o Your motherboard support currently feature a UEFI firmware
o It should support ME8L update process at the physical level, where the EEPROM is sufficiently large" ?

You just pointed out the problem. When they start upscaling, it becomes sluggish. Sure, with a Quad-Core ARM chip it could be viable, but that won't be commercially viable for about 2 years. Even then, it will only be good for basic purposes. You won't see anyone playing any graphically intensive games on one of those, or running any advanced software. ARM chips are impressive because the environment is so limited. They take a handful of tasks and do them excellently. Try and take even a Quad-Core ARM chip, and do what most people can easily do with their i5-2500k's, and it will grind to a halt.

Intel is a threat to ARM, not the other way around. Intel is taking mobile more and more seriously and they have a pretty fat manufacturing process advantage. All they need to do is decide to design mobile chips for flat out competition instead of this shit they do with Atom. Netbooks could be notably more powerful but Intel holds back the performance to keep things segregated. They run the market from top to bottom and they're very stubborn with their pricing schemes.

Yes, its a shame. We are sitting on quads for some time now, if i am correct, since Jan2007. Intel then released quad in performance segment for reasonable price (not just extreme) despite that there were almost none apps that could utilize 4 cores. It should do the same now. My guess is this is because lack of competition - if amd fx chips would have turned out better, there would be hexa ivy on horizon. If intel released hexa now, my guess is it would be so future proof, that it cripple its (intels) future sales.

Benetanegia said:That's not true at all. If it was true Intel wouldn't have 60% of GPU shipments.

My understanding is that every HD2000 and HD3000 Intel GPU counts in that percentage. What percentage of 2400/2500/2500K/2600/2600K owners use the on-die graphics?
You might also argue that gamers upgrade components and systems on a much more regular basis than non-gamers - so things aren't quite that black and white...

Benetanegia said: And half (or more) of the remaining market share wouldn't be integrated graphics from both AMD and Nvidia.

While a large percentage of those would be for the budget box/OEM/office ws, many tend to be snapped up by gamers also - IGP chipset boards tend to be much cheaper than full-fat enthusiast chipsets mobo's, they also offer a suitable backup if you're between graphics upgrades, and offer a fallback position if you're graphics get fubar.

Benetanegia said:And the remaining wouldn't be primarily dominated by low end GPUs not suitable for gaming.

Those "unsuitable" graphics cards still contribute to a sizeable proportion of Stream users

Benetanegia said: Laptops and nettops wouldn't outsell desktops, etc.

True...but then, a sizeable percentage of people either have both (laptop + desktop) or a gaming capable laptop.

Sixteen billion dollars in PC gaming revenue might not be everyones idea of big money (forecast to reach $23bn by 2014), but it isn't chump change either. I would also certainly expect AMD's Gaming Evolved and Nvidia's TWIMTBP game dev programs to keep pushing system requirements higher to keep GPU sales ticking over (another $13.8bn to add into the equation)

Benetanegia said:If ARM can grab the entire non-gaming, non-enthusiast, non-workstation market Intel could still easily loose 80% of their consumer market. Sure that's not going to happen anytime soon, but even a 15% loss would completely change the landscape and would make them have to cut some corners in the company. Add the fact that they also compete with their own previous generations* and Intel could be facing some real challenges in the near future.

Benetanegia said:* Like I said any Quad from the past 4 years is enough for 95% of the people. Also most people expect their PCs to last more than 5 years. These people who are buying PCs right now will not be willing to buy anything for the next 5-8 years, because they trully don't need it.

Three thoughts on that one...
1.Yup, That's why Dell and HP still sell.
2. AMD are well and truly f%
3. Pro markets (server/ws/hpc) and diversification

Benetanegia said:If by 2015 ARM can put out octo+ cores, that are out of order and can reach 4 Ghz, that will be a good enough upgrade for them. Cortex A-15 is already OoO superscalar and is expected to come in at 2.5 Ghz. So what I said above is more than doable, hence it would all become a matter of price, wattage etc. and there ARM is a much better contender. Not that Intel could not contend in that situation, but it would need to become a much more "slim" company in order to be able to be sustained selling $10-$50 chips intead of current ones.

Cool...might come about if if you think ARM can oust x86 in any reasonable timeframe. That's one helluva '"if".

EDIT: Ok.. one unlocked IBE (IBS?) chip prognosticated to come in at under $600. Cant tell the difference between it and the $1000 version of the same chip though :S

Faster clock speed, Xtreme vs only "unlocked", more Cache (15M I think). The 1000$ one is to replace the 1000$ 990X, the 600$ one is to replace the i7 970/980X. I believe it may go lower, to 550$ or something, only time will tell

HumanSmoke said:My understanding is that every HD2000 and HD3000 Intel GPU counts in that percentage. What percentage of 2400/2500/2500K/2600/2600K owners use the on-die graphics?
You might also argue that gamers upgrade components and systems on a much more regular basis than non-gamers - so things aren't quite that black and white...

While a large percentage of those would be for the budget box/OEM/office ws, many tend to be snapped up by gamers also - IGP chipset boards tend to be much cheaper than full-fat enthusiast chipsets mobo's, they also offer a suitable backup if you're between graphics upgrades, and offer a fallback position if you're graphics get fubar.

I was not trying to make a point about exactly how much gaming PCs are there. I was just refuting his claim that the mayority of people are gamers which is completely false. The mayority of people use their PC for web surfing, mailing, watch videos (mainly youtube) and a small proportion of them for the occasional gaming that includes web games, Facebook games and Pop Cap games. And guess what, many people buy their Popcap games in Steam. In fact, due to new games being console ports I find myself playing those games and some old games (classics) more time than new ones too, and I have a Sandy B and GTX460... not every Steam user is playing the latest AAA game. In fact I think CS 1.6 and CSS are still the most played games. You don't need a high-end GPU for those, not even 5 year old high-end GPU.

Those "unsuitable" graphics cards still contribute to a sizeable proportion of Stream users

Now I'm confused. Are you trying to prove my point or what? If a sizable proportion of Steam users have unsuitable graphics (won't play the latest games, that's what I meant). Isn't it logical that they do not have the latest CPU either? More than 20% of people still use single core CPUs on Steam. The point is, even amongst gamers, not everyone needs a high end CPU. Cortex A15 is going to be a lot faster than the single core CPU that 20% os Steam users are still using. You can count on that, so is or is not ARM going to be enough for them along with the mayority of people who just do websurfing?

Sixteen billion dollars in PC gaming revenue might not be everyones idea of big money (forecast to reach $23bn by 2014), but it isn't chump change either. I would also certainly expect AMD's Gaming Evolved and Nvidia's TWIMTBP game dev programs to keep pushing system requirements higher to keep GPU sales ticking over (another $13.8bn to add into the equation)

At no point did I say Intel would fall apart or disapear. But I'm pretty sure that the days of being a $3.5bn profit company are going to be gone really soon. If you don't believe that, just wait.

Three thoughts on that one...
1.Yup, That's why Dell and HP still sell.
2. AMD are well and truly f% indeed but AMD is a smaller company that can arguablly adapt better. that does not mean they would do better, but while Intel can see themselves becoming a company 1/4th the size they are today, that's harder to happen to AMD. the odds of AMD perishing in the new situation are a lot bigger tho, but if they do survive they will not be as bad for them
3. Pro markets (server/ws/hpc) and diversification - already being taken by hybrid solutions and of course Intel is also there with Larrabee, but the future for Intel's high end CPUs is far from being rosy imo.

Not that I like any of what I'm saying. I'm an enthusiast and want high-end PCs and AAA games built for them. But I'm just being realistic and recognizing that the grand maority of people just don't want or need anything close to what I want, and come 2015 they would rather buy a $20 device with the power of a current Fusion chip, than paying hundreds of dollars for something they don't need. And that's going to happen if not by 2015, by 2020, no matter how much we QQ about that. It remains to be seen if the high-end desktop CPU and GPU markets could survive or not anyway. The gaming market IS growing so while a niche market it can still be big enough, a profitable one, and with lots of competition too.

^^
This is nice and all, but i still cant see reason why it must be arm arch inside those simple internet browsing/word processing devices. I believe amd, intel or both of them will tune their low power x86 cores (bobcat/atom/whatever) soon enough (they are not so miserable at the moment afterall). Of course arm designs are better now, they have been paying attention to this LP market way longer then intel/amd, they arch are optimized for it (created with those LP ideas in mind). I really doubt intel will give up its market share without tough fight. Time will tell.

shb- said:^^
This is nice and all, but i still cant see reason why it must be arm arch inside those simple internet browsing/word processing devices. I believe amd, intel or both of them will tune their low power x86 cores (bobcat/atom/whatever) soon enough (they are not so miserable at the moment afterall).

I think it's a "must" right now as it's the only way to go for those ultra low power devices. But yeah, x86 and ARM are getting closer and closer each other and I for one would like x86 on those small things as well. Windows Everywhere, with the software, everwhere indeed..

shb- said:Yes, its a shame. We are sitting on quads for some time now, if i am correct, since Jan2007. Intel then released quad in performance segment for reasonable price (not just extreme) despite that there were almost none apps that could utilize 4 cores. It should do the same now. My guess is this is because lack of competition - if amd fx chips would have turned out better, there would be hexa ivy on horizon. If intel released hexa now, my guess is it would be so future proof, that it cripple its (intels) future sales.

shb- said:^^
This is nice and all, but i still cant see reason why it must be arm arch inside those simple internet browsing/word processing devices. I believe amd, intel or both of them will tune their low power x86 cores (bobcat/atom/whatever) soon enough (they are not so miserable at the moment afterall). Of course arm designs are better now, they have been paying attention to this LP market way longer then intel/amd, they arch are optimized for it (created with those LP ideas in mind). I really doubt intel will give up its market share without tough fight. Time will tell.

No one's saying it will be ARM necessarily that will dominate (although the odds are on their side as I'll explain shortly), but it's the ARM camp that will enter it first (I mean they are 100% pushing there already) and it's ARM camp that will improve it a lot faster at least in the first few years. The reason is Intel or AMD are not interested in these devices becoming more powerful.

Think about it, every device that is powerful enough for average joe will replace one of their desktop CPUs. Even if such a device has an Intel/AMD CPU, that CPU is going to be tiny and cheap (if they want a chance to compete with ARM devices at least), so no matter how you look at it, the mayority of their market shifted from an ASP of $150 per CPU + $100 mobo, to average of $25 per SoC. The company they are today is gone either way, no way to mantain their several dozen billion revenue. So Intel is going to fight the trend, the adoption of such devices as much as they can. The reason (all this is only my opinion obviously) is this, following the example prices from above:

- If the device is powered by an Intel SoC. They lost 1 desktop consumer (-$250) for one SoC consumer (+$25), that is, they lost $225 (compared to current market) and contributed to such devices becoming better, by simply being competitive. (because if the device uses Intel is safe to assume it is better than ARM)

- If device is ARM, they lost $250, but there's not as much competition as ARM is the only one really pushing for faster chips. Yeah, there's many people producing ARM based chips, but only one designing them and moving the tech forward. Big difference compared to 2 big companies/conglomerates fighting each other in designs and production.

The logical steps for Intel are clear for the first few years. Fight back sure, by creating SoCs, but do not compete entirely, do not create the kind of killer SoC that would take the crown yes, and the market share, but at the price of demostrating that those devices are (more) powerful. Use other methods to enter the market rather than using superior tech. This means that for a few years they will bleed desktop CPU market and will not gain too much market share on portable devices, but it's better than contributing to the trend and make the shift happen overnight. More years selling the $250 solution, even losing market, is better than being king in a less profitable (per sale) market, and everybody knows (even Intel), that they would not be king either, only another name in a long list of SoC manufacturers.

For competition I can see an 8-core Ivy Bridge with HT. AMD already claimed to be the first to release an 8-Core desktop CPU. Anyhow, Ivybridge will have a hard time taking on Piledriver when released :rolleyes: